The Wire Recap: Season 5, Episode 4, “Transitions”

“Transitions” is what I think of a true “fan’s episode” of The Wire: From beginning to end, it’s jammed with scenes that exemplify everything people watch the show for—rich character interaction, crisp dialogue, dry humor, righteously indignant muckraking and complex wheels-within-wheels plotting. It’s also the kind of episode that can only be done at this point in a season, when there’s still time for events to play out in all manner of ways before groundwork has to be laid for the finale. Such episodes often fall a little too early to feature seismic, game-changing events, but that’s definitely not the case here.

The title refers, of course, to the journalistic art of the seamless segue from one paragraph to another—and while, like most of the season’s titles, this one comes from the vocabulary of journalese, the episode itself somewhat ironically has less Sun action than the three that preceded it. At least it seems to—this week’s events on the streets, at city hall, in police HQ and at the Western District station house represent the culmination of so much long-term plot and character development spanning several seasons that the Sun scenes can’t help seeming like weak sauce by comparison.

The two principal transitions, of course, are Rawls’ temporary elevation to the commissioner’s office (with Daniels taking over as Deputy Commissioner for Operations for a few months of grooming before being handed the top job) and Marlo’s coup against Proposition Joe, which both makes Marlo the king of the East Side and leaves “the Greek” with no choice but to do business with him. I’m sure a substet of Wire fans will float the theory that it’s actually Marlo, and not Joe, who takes a bullet in the final scene, but that’s wishful thinking. I mean, come on—is David Simon that cheap? The second that next week’s “React Quotes” hits HBO On Demand (where it should do better than usual thanks to viewers who don’t want to be forced to choose between The Wire and next week’s Super Bowl), the theory will deservedly die quickly.

Spooked by his ex-wife’s concern about the dirt in Burrell’s possession, Daniels goes to the commissioner to swear that he had nothing to do with the effort to oust him. Before Burrell has the chance to use the incriminating evidence—which apparently proves that Daniels was part of a corrupt Eastern District drug squad during his early days on the force—he’s persuaded by council president Nerese Campbell to go quietly and accept a cushy private sector job that will pay him just as much, if not more than he was making as Baltimore’s top cop. It’s a blatant bribe, one that is somehow bizarrely legal, much as the loan that allows Rhonda Pearlman to nail Clay Davis with the “head shot”—something “every kid with a starter home” does, as Lester Freamon points out—is bizarrely illegal.

There’s a great shot toward the end of the episode of Daniels smiling with satisfaction as he visits his new office, but his happiness would naturally be short lived if he knew that Campbell now has the dossier, which he presumably believes to be out of circulation as a result of Burrell’s failure to use it. It’s a pretty safe bet that we haven’t seen the last of the folder—but with no other viable African-American candidates for the commissioner’s office in sight, expect Campbell to use it as a means of keeping Daniels in line rather than getting him out of the way.

In the wake of Butchie’s death last week, we learn a little more about his background—apparently he wasn’t born blind but rather lost his sight to a bullet shortly after he took to playing the game. Joe, who knows everyone remotely connected to the drug trade—he really is a classic center-of-the-web intelligence broker, like Conan Doyle’s Mycroft Holmes or George R. R. Martin’s Littlefinger—appears to be the only one of the current players (apart from Omar, of course), visits the gangsta florist we’ve seen before and purchases a flower arrangement accompanied by a message that could double as a dying curse hurled toward Marlo: “Woe to them that call evil good and good evil” (that’s Isaiah 5:20, in case you were wondering). Joe, as we learn in his ensuing conversation with Slim Charles, is well aware that Cheese is in business with Marlo behind his back, but he claims to be wary about taking premature action against members of his own family. Instead of moving directly, Joe tells Slim he’s going to take a few steps back until the Omar-Marlo feud settles down, allowing Cheese to run his business in the meantime—implicitly putting Cheese in Omar’s line of fire. When Omar later demands that Slim take him to Joe, Slim swears up and down that Joe had no complicity in Butchie’s death. Cheese’s name is not mentioned (Slim may not know that Cheese steered Snoop and Chris toward Butchie), but Joe’s unfaithful nephew is nonetheless now at least #4 on Omar’s revenge list, and ought to be looking over his shoulder at all times—at least unless, God forbid, Marlo & Co. somehow manage to take care of Omar first.

Joe doesn’t really sign his own death warrant until the next co-op meeting, at which he rules against Cheese and in favor of Hungry Man in a territorial dispute (in a great continuity touch, the strip-club owner who cut the shady deal with Nerese Campbell in “More With Less” identifies himself and tells some of his side of the story at the co-op meeting). The scenes that follow are among the most powerful depictions of treachery and gangland justice in the annals of filmed crime drama, up there with Fredo Corleone’s inadvertent betrayal of his brother (and Michael’s subsequent revenge) in The Godfather Part II and the execution of Tommy DeVito in GoodFellas when he thinks he’s about to be made. As the meeting breaks up, there’s a great shot of Joe and Marlo facing each other in profile, with Joe’s massive gut symbolizing the distance between them. “You need to focus a bit more on working with people,” Joe tells Marlo, before the younger dealer walks away with a sneer on his face.

Even so, Joe continues his mentorship of Marlo by setting him up as Maury Levy’s newest client—and, in a great display of what makes Joe Joe, we see him bond with Herc over their mutual contempt for Earvin Burrell, who was a year ahead of Joe in high school. Even as Joe continues his efforts to reshape Marlo in his own image, Marlo continues to move against him by having Chris and Snoop offer Hungry Man as a gift to Cheese, one that more or less literally comes tied with a bow (for his part, Hungry Man reacts the way any of us would to getting shanghaied by Chris and Snoop: “Man already shit himself, and we ain’t even get started yet,” Snoop marvels with a laugh. “Get a gift, give a gift,” Chris counsels Cheese, essentially sealing Joe’s fate.

When Marlo and his lieutenants visit Joe at home in the final scene, Marlo delivers a line that’s both a withering dismissal of Joe’s patronage and a clear-eyed assessment of his own character: “I wasn’t made to play the son.” Indeed, when Marlo arrived on The Wire, he was already a fully-formed evil, and his ability to hold sway over volatile personalities such as Snoop and Chris stands as ultimate proof that he’s a natural-born leader. Up to his literal dying breath, Joe attempts to bargain his way out of trouble; in response, Marlo offers perhaps the most chilling display of his charisma yet as he coaxes Joe into accepting death without resistance.

Another arguable transition—a much more subtle one—is the continued growth of Ellis Carver into a stand-up officer and, more than likely, Daniels’ spiritual successor. At the top of the episode, the man with the worst haircut on television, Western District patrolman Anthony Colicchio, attempts to bust Michael and his corner boys, only to walk into a trap: The bag in which he expects to find Michael’s package turns out to be full of dog pooh. Michael (wearing an all-too-apt “Ghetto University” T-shirt) and his pals may not be holding, but they still succeed in pissing off Colicchio enough to haul them down to the station house under arrest for harassment.

Carver (who you’ll recall made a futile attempt to take Randy Wagstaff under his wing last season and spare the lad from foster care) sides with Michael and will have nothing of it. “I’ve seen some stupid shit in my day, but even by Western standards this rates a whole new category!”, Carver barks, before announcing his intent to bring charges against Colicchio over the incident. Carver’s decision displeases his old pal Herc, but he sticks to his guns. In addition to showing his continued evolution as a man and a police officer, the incident could also be construed as marking another stage in the transition of the Baltimore Police into being an African-American-controlled institution (a transition that, in the Wire universe at least, has been taking place from the top down). To Colicchio, Michael & Co. are “fucking yos”, but a black cop like Carver is able to see their behavior for what it is, which is just boys being boys (though Michael proves he’s further along the road to manhood than his baby face suggests when his crackhead mom asks for help finding work and he tells her he’s not going to pay her to be his mother).

At the Sun, Scott Templeton displays his work ethic (or lack thereof) by going to interview for a Metro job at the Washington Post while Alma Gutierrez busts her ass doing real reporting to help the Sun get the scoop on Burrell’s ouster. The Sun gets that story, but budget cuts on the courtroom front result in them losing out on the perp walk that Rhonda Pearlman sets up for Clay Davis. All of Davis’s scenes are fantastic and a testament to Isaiah Whitlock Jr.’s brilliance as an actor. The Davis who shows up to testify, deeply humbled, is a man we’ve never seen before, and it’s breathtaking to watch Whitlock as Davis first takes the stand, inspecting the evidence against him as if the paper was contaminated with Ebola, and then turning on the Clay Davis persona we all know the second he steps in front of the cameras that are waiting for him outside the courthouse. The Wire’s criminal failure to receive any Emmy nominations for season four makes it extremely unlikely that the television academy will recognize Whitlock, but I’d argue that few actors on The Wire are more deserving (though of course there are strong cases to be made for André Royo, Michael Kenneth Williams, Robert F. Chew and Wendell Pierce—hell, you could fill the all the Supporting Actor slots twice over with Wire regulars and still leave out a ton of amazing actors).

This week’s opening quote is attributed to Scott Templeton, in reference to his failure to get hired at the Post, but it could just as easily apply to how it’s a buyer’s market out there for Templeton’s bullshit, as well as for the lie McNulty is peddling. The “buyer’s market” line is also delivered by Lester’s old partner (still stuck on patrol as a result of getting screwed over by Rawls, we’re told), who Lester has surprisingly little difficulty persuading to provide him and McNulty with access to a fresh corpse. The bogus serial killer may be McNulty’s baby, but Lester takes point on the matter this week, persuading McNulty to visit a homeless camp in search of potential “witnesses” in the hope of creating an alibi that will keep anyone from suspecting that the killer is a fake. McNulty’s enthusiasm for the scam remains undiminished, as we see when he carves defensive wounds into the fingertips of the “victim”. Indeed, the glee with which he tells Beadie about the case almost makes it seem as if McNulty is starting to believe his own lies. Rather than the hoax, I’d say the definitive proof of how unhinged McNulty has become is his increasingly voluntary estrangement of Beadie, a woman who is clearly one of the best things to ever happen to him. Beadie’s speech about how she never believed the “McNutty” stories until he fell off the wagon is, however, unfortunately tin-eared and well below The Wire’s usual standards (as well as unworthy of Amy Ryan’s formidable talent). Given the amount of awesomeness that David Simon and Edward Burns cram into this incredibly dense episode, though, I’ll gladly forgive them for whiffing one measly scene.

With so much of the blog punditry about this season centering on the Sun storyline and the debate over whether David Simon’s treatment of the paper comes down to sour grapes (you know it’s getting out of hand when the Brits start chiming in), it’s refreshing to have come across a source of discussion that’s 100% free of Sun-related content: Sudhir Venkatesh’s weekly accounts for The New York Times’ Freakonomics blog of watching the show with a group of fellows who have actually played the game. Venkatesh has assembled a gallery of real characters alright, but half the fun comes from the censorship the transcript goes through to meet the Times’ standards . “But white folks [who write the series] always love to keep these uppity [characters] alive,” says Orlando, a retired Brooklyn gang member, speaking of Prop Joe during the roundtable on “More With Less”. Some of Venkatesh’s reportage is so colorful (“I knew that f——t would come back,” Flavor rejoiced, beer spilling down his arm. “Get his a—, Omar. Get Marlo, that little b—ch.”) that at least one commenter over there has accused him of pulling a Stephen Glass/Jayson Blair (or Scott Templeton, if you will) maneuver. To my mind, that’s high praise—because as I see it, a reporter can’t be charged with making shit up unless he’s doing a really good job.

In the latest of the many essays that he’s been publishing in lieu of interviews, David Simon describes a season two dust-up with then-Mayor Martin O’Malley, who was threatening to rescind the series’s permits to film in the city after he was displeased (as the Sun’s Jay Spry would diplomatically cast it) with the first season. The timing is interesting insofar as the encounter may have influenced the creation or characterization of Carcetti, a transparent O’Malley analogue who made his first appearance during the third season. In the piece, Simon mentions the real people behind a number of other characters, but in this case he leaves it to his readers to make the connection themselves.

Slant is reaching more readers than ever before, but advertising revenue across the Internet is falling fast, hitting independently owned and operated publications like ours the hardest. We’ve watched many of our fellow media sites fall by the way side in recent years, but we’re determined to stick around.

We’ve never asked our readers for financial support before, and we’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees. If you like what we do, however, please consider becoming a Slant patron.

Ben: This is getting a little heady for me, but let me see what I can do. I need to be clearer. It is epistemologically untenable to reject objective/analytical categories: not only untenable but impossible. Those categories are how conceive reality. But that was not my point. My point was the invalidity of staring with systems of thought and imposing them on the text. And I repeat:

"it is possible to analyze character motivation from either the subjective position of the character (personal social life, individual psychology, etc.) or the objective position of the character (sociological locations in economic systems, political structures, cultural frameworks, etc.â€

as what I took to be an example of that. That is why Marxist, Freudian, what have you, schools of interpretation are problematic, and why the post modern critical project is problematic. Formalist critics, including the New Critics when I was a student of literature too many years ago, are correct to privilege the *text* and to mine its properties with conceptual tools relevant to the nature of the art they are dealing with.

I may agree with you, if I understand you, that binary opposition is a necessary step in criticism, since such oppositions are a vital part of how we formulate the world. But binary opposition, as I read you to say, is of course not at the end of apprehending art, although I am uncertain whether beyond binary opposition "dialecticalâ€ is the right notion. In literature, binary opposition is ultimately resolved by paradox, the art of apparent contradiction, in which seeming opposition is mediated by an insight or a kind of *thematics* that yokes the opposing ends in tense relationship. My problem with thinking of that as dialectical is that in dialectics, the thesis and antithesis merge into something new, a synthesis, which reconstructs the former opposites. So, in the character of McNulty, as he now appears to me, and I briefly argued, his reckless and heedless personal chaos making and destructiveness are paradoxically of a piece with his best moral self. There is, I contend, no dialectical synthesis here; rather there is a tense apparent opposition held together in the complex wholeness of his character.

I am notâ€”let me again try to be clearerâ€” in insisting on the text as the sole ground for critical judgment necessarily saying that you neglect it. I was only trying to point to a danger in that in the way you farmed your first post, which I may not have understood well enough.

But I will argue quarrel with you as to whether we can say some things psychological or character driven about the Greek. He is not so sketchy a character as you can make out that we can say nothing meaningful. We can some psychological differences between him and Vondas, for a small example. We know that he is somewhat homespun, that he is utterly without pretence, that he is intellectually forceful, that he is shrewd and careful, that he covers more bases than Cal Ripken ever did, that he is murderously ruthless and harbours a massive reservoir of evil, and other things too.

These are all given by the text. Other than what he does, other than what episodes tell us about him, what others say about him, than what his actions show about him, what else is there to say about him?

When you read Dostoevsky you get perhaps the world's greatest subjective presentation of character. You get what his texts give you. David Simon is not Dostoevsky and The Wire is not literature. There are characters in The Wire whose psychologies are more fully depicted than the Greek's is.

But so what? In a nutshell, I have not read on this thread, of if I did I can no longer recall it, the kind of over-interpretation of the Greek's motivations that you complain cannot be made.

Anyway Ben, this back and forth is enjoyable to me. But I have gone on way too long. So I'll leave it here; and no doubt lying here is a dead horse pleading with me to stop beating him or her.

Dan: I will look you up in Victoria for sure.Posted by itzik basman on 2008-02-03 02:16:00

And Itzik, if you're ever in OB and don't drop by for a chat I will be deeply offended. You just might get lucky and find Ben Livant kicking around too. He is my (or I am his) cinematic doppelganger after all.Posted by Dan Jardine on 2008-02-03 00:52:00

Okay, my bad. I was supposed to attribute the above post to Ben Livant, who was unable to post it himself. Anyways, while I sometime play him on TV, I am NOT Ben Livant. And so it goes...Posted by Dan Jardine on 2008-02-03 00:43:00

Itzik, in my previous post I refrained from referring to Dan Jardine's comments and I will continue to do so now, not only out of respect for his ability to participate further if he so chooses but also in an attempt to clarify our own discussion. At this point, we appear to be departing from The Wire almost entirely and entering into a consideration of conceptual methodology in general and the rules for interpretation in particular. With regard to the former, you reject "objective" or analytical categories as necessarily false abstractions. This strikes me as epistemologically untennable, both for its absolutist substance and for the a priori manner in which you posit it. Be this as it may, at the same time I hear you dismiss the dichotomization of "objective" and "subjective" and with this I ultimately agree. Indeed, I maintain that at least one of the moves required to ensure that analytical categories not be false abstractions is their non-dichotomization; especially binary oppositions like "objective/subjective" which must be dialectically related. But this does not preclude the analytical moment. Quite the contrary, it necessitates it.

Turning to what should and should not be permitted in our hermeneutics, you consistently point to the text as the only ground for any interpretation, adament in this that I am essentially neglecting it. Yet, this will be the third time that I have suggested that the text simply does not support any sort of "subjective position" reading. There is just no evidence provided. The character is infrequent and sketchy, quite peripherial really, and given this, his motivation is better grasped in terms of his "objective position." To elaborate on the latter one more time here would be cruel and unusual punishment for all involved. I will content myself by thanking out host for saying this about my treatment of the matter: "I think your logic is impeccable, and consistent with the show's world view as established over five seasons." Thanks Matt.Posted by Dan Jardine on 2008-02-03 00:41:00

Ben suppose I misunderstood you.

Your take is a take and it has to be. For sure. But it is wrong to say, I contend, "...that it is possible to analyze character motivation from either the subjective position of the character (personal social life, individual psychology, etc.) or the objective position of the character (sociological locations in economic systems, political structures, cultural frameworks, etc.)â€ I argue it isn't possible : because these "positionsâ€â€”objective or subjectiveâ€”removed from the evidence of the text in the way of trying to interpret the text are abstractions at categorical removes from what the text tells us. The text must be, I argue, the ground for judgment.

There can be a critical focus on a character's psychology or a critical focus on how social conditions, for example, have consequence for a character or his or her conduct, to be sure, but only insofar as the text allows. and this brings back to my little paraphrase of something Frye wrote in The Anatomy of Criticism. So take the Greek's motivation as a case in point. I didn't understand you to say, to be clear, "that a socialist critique of capitalism is required to understand it.â€ I said that I understood you to say that that what is Dan Jardine had saidâ€”his "political salt in the sugar bowlâ€, in your resonant trope. I didn't think that Dan Jardine had approached the scene that way. But in speaking about the Greek, you could talk about "the laws of the marketâ€, I suppose. But I wouldn't and â€“while he can speak for himselfâ€”I don't think Dan Jardine does, (though I noted and quarreled with his post script comment about the drug trade as a pure form of capitalism.)

The notion "Market lawsâ€, equally respectfully, over thinks and abstracts the matter. The Greek less sentimental than Vondas, is all about (his death inducing) business and will not let concern for life interfere with business. The " subjective positionâ€ of the Greek is simply what the evidence of the scenes tells us it isâ€”no more nor no less.

So in the end your dichotimizing between objective and subjective may be somewhat a tad misconceived. Theyâ€”objective and subjectiveâ€”are opposite sides of the same coin, ways of talking about what the text tells us.

Dan Jardine: my in laws live in Oak Bay. I visit them about once a year. Maybe we'll get together for a coffee one day and get wired.Posted by itzik basman on 2008-02-02 17:34:00

Itzik, to muddy the waters further, I never did learn my lesson. I STILL teach at Oak Bay. I must confess I don't think there's anyone on staff who was walking that Green Mile back in 1970, however.Posted by Dan Jardine on 2008-02-02 07:05:00

Hello Itzik Basman, Ben Livant here. (And my apologies to everyone else for this one-on-one message.) Itzik, with all due respect, you misunderstood my usage of the terms "objective" and "subjective." I did not say that my take was not a take, not an interpretation, not a subjective reading on my part. Of course it is. What I said - or tried to - was that it is possible to analyze character motivation from either the subjective position of the character (personal social life, individual psychology, etc.) or the objective position of the character (sociological locations in economic systems, political structures, cultural frameworks, etc.) I did not claim that I was being objective. I said I was focusing on the objective position of the character. With respect to this in the case of The Greek's motivation, I did not suggest that a socialist critique of capitalism is required to understand it. I simply focused on his objective position as a certain kind of capitalist. You refer to "objective laws" and while I did not use such hard-science language; yes, it is the laws of the market to which The Greek acquiesces, not Marlo's person as such. The ideological regard or disregard you or I have for these laws is a separate matter. As for the option of focusing on the subjective position of The Greek, I reiterate that I do not see how the 54 episodes of The Wire thus far support any reading that is not close to pure speculation.

As for your personal salutation, I don't know if I am the person you think I am. You inform me that you practice taught at Oak Bay in 1970. In 1970, I was 10 years old. Cheers.Posted by ben livant on 2008-02-02 04:35:00

I never liked Tony Soprano or Vito Corleone either. I don't like sociopaths, don't find them very interesting. My sympathies were always reserved for characters like Bubbles, Wallace, D'Angelo, Michael--people who were basically good at heart but were caught up in the Game through forces beyond their control. Or characters like Frank, who do all the wrong things for all the right reasons.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-01 22:17:00

...That's certainly not true in my case. I despise both Joe and Marlo (although Marlo is definitely worse than Joe) ...

That's interesting. Most guys I know watching this that I talk too about it were sad to see Joe go.

We all liked him even while recognizing that he was a gangster, no less than most of the others, trafficking in the amongst the worst shit ever. That tension for us is thematic; and it was even more pronounced in the Sorpanos, with its--unlike The Wire--privileging of Tony as the predominant and pervasively central character. Some have argued that in the Sopranos that tension (and its implications for us and the world and for the dilemmas of good and evil)was the overarching theme of the entire series. Be that as it may, The Wire, a far superior show imho, is too complex for such an over- arching thematic account. But I thought that that theme was resonant, amomgst others, in the meaning of Joe's death and our (or some of our) perhaps complicated responses to it.Posted by itzik basman on 2008-02-01 17:48:00

"What a viewer might find unsatisfying (in his or her own fondness for Joe and recoiling from Marlo) is the exact and clinical, cost benefit calculating, coldness the Greek brings to that acccomodation in his own financial interest."

That's certainly not true in my case. I despise both Joe and Marlo (although Marlo is definitely worse than Joe) and I certainly never thought of the Greek as anything other than cold and calculating. But your argument has persuaded me that the problem with the Greek-Marlo scene lies in its execution and not in its conception.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-01 08:16:00

...for the shift in loyalties to be completely satisfying...

But isn't that the thematic and emotional point: there are no shifting loyalties, only shifting business realities that the Greek accommdates himself to, indifferent to personal regard?

What a viewer might find unsatisfying (in his or her own fondness for Joe and recoiling from Marlo) is the exact and clinical, cost benefit calculating, coldness the Greek brings to that acccomodation in his own financial interest.Posted by itzik basman on 2008-02-01 06:30:00

What I could have said more clearly is that while I think there are debatable long-term economic reasons for the Greek's decision, we as an audience don't have enough information for the shift in loyalties to be completely satisfying.Posted by Simon Crowe on 2008-02-01 04:09:00

"I personally don't think Jamie Hector is nearly as good an actor as Wood Harris or Idris Elba."

I'd need to see Hector in other roles before I could decide about that. But Hector gives precisely what the role requires. Whether that's good acting or mere typecasting I can't say yet.

PS itzik, your interpretation of the Greek-Marlo scene is the most plausible I've read so far. You've almost convinced me.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-01-31 22:04:00

...If so much of the meaning of the Greek-Marlow scenes must be extrapolated in discussiosn like these, then the scenes don't completely work...

So any work art that can be variously interpreted and endlessly argued about--Hamlet, say--doesn't "work"?Posted by itzik basman on 2008-01-31 20:53:00

To stand Matt's argument on it's head...I'd argue that the show isn't saying the old days were better but that these days are much, much, worse. I don't think it's any accident that Marlow is both scarier and more boring than Avon and Stringer. I personally don't think Jamie Hector is nearly as good an actor as Wood Harris or Idris Elba.

If so much of the meaning of the Greek-Marlow scenes must be extrapolated in discussiosn like these, then the scenes don't completely work.Posted by Simon Crowe on 2008-01-31 20:22:00

To Ben Livant and Dan Jardine:

There are a lot of interesting posts on this thread, but I am addressing this post specifically to the two of you, and generally to anyone who may be interested.

Ben Livant's comments about the distinction between the local drug trade and the internationally financed drug supply are well taken and as someone noted inform part of The Wire's world view.

But a problem I have with his post is his own distinction between some of our implicit "subjectiveâ€ approaches to the Greek Marlo scene and Dan Jardine's implicit "objectiveâ€ approach to that scene. For Livant, as I read him, the objective approach is comprised by two socialist critiques of free enterprise mixed economies: 1. exploitation of labour; and 2. systemic obstacles to post production redistribution of wealth.

So I read Livant to be saying that these two critiques, as objective laws, inform Jardine's approach to the scene which must accordingly be construed in light of them. And he says the subjectivists, me included, approach the scene from the standpoint of "great artâ€. For Livant, we extract prescriptive criteria form "great artâ€ and these criteria, laws in their own right perhaps, condition our constructions of the scene.

But I don't read Jardine to be approaching the scene the way Livant says he is. Rather, I think he, I and Johnson, all of us, approach the scene by what it in itself and in the context of the episode and show as a whole tells, as best as we can make it out. I see no prescription here, regardless of how we may see the scene differently. I don't see how anyone could approach trying to construe the scene in any different way. All we really have is the evidence of the * text* itself. What Simon meant or intended is irrelevant. We apprehending the work art itself are in no worse position than he is in construing it. And that allows us to separate the show and its rich meanings from political talking points of any kind.

A good critic's emphases in writing on The Wire will be proportionate to the emphases in The Wire itself, to paraphrase Northrop Frye.

"Acquiescenceâ€ may not be le mot juste, but it is more accurate than saying the Greek "sanctionsâ€ Marlo's opinion that "Joe got to go.â€ I'd argue it this way: Vondas, more sentimental than the Greek, has already told Marlo that his people don't care about the street, have no concern with it, save to ensure the smooth logistics of distribution and payment. All they want to know about the street is limited to that. They have no interest in the street's goings on or in learning new names and new procedures. But, as the Greek can plainly see, Marlo is relentless; he keeps coming and coming; he learns and sanitizes his money and sanitizes himself in the process. The Greek takes Marlo's measure and concludes that he can do business with him. He will do business with either Marlo or Joe. That is all he tells Marlo and that is all Marlo needs to know. If Marlo bests Joe, the Greek will deal with Marlo; if Joe bests Marlo, the Greek will deal with Joe. The Greeks sanctions nothing in any strong sense of sanction nor does he give in to anything in any strong sense of give in. He simply agrees to deal business with Marlo if that is how things come about. He has no way of knowing who will prevail.

Finally Dan Jardine, I re-read your post. There is some of your political salt in the sugar bowl, just not the salt that Ben Livant argues for. You do in fact say that the drug trade is the purest form of capitalism. Saying that exposes your political underwear. I think your comment is extraneous to the meaning of the scene between Marlo and the Greek save for the idea that business, financial concerns, precede all else in this particular province of the world of The Wire. But that is a reductive notion of capitalism, which is theoretically and practically incoherent without the rule of law built into its very being.

p.s. Ben Livant in 1970 I practice taught at Oak Bay before concluding that secondary school teaching was not for me--if you are the guy I think you are.Posted by itzik basman on 2008-01-31 19:52:00

"Finally, I call shenanigans on Jeff Goldberg's claim that he could see Prop Joe's untimely demise foreshadowed. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but it's fair to say that The Wire has foreshadowed plenty of horrible endings that never came to pass.â€

Hayden, I have to disagree with you somewhat given that I too had the sense that Joe's future was going to be cut short. I agree that the WIRE has foreshadowed a lot of empty demises, but I also think one of the great strengths of the show â€“ and in most of Pelecanos' fiction, who generally scripts episodes where a main or loveable character dies â€“ is the sick realization that they are going to die and how that slow realization up to the death is so powerful. Sobotka, Wallace, Stringer, Bodie, all had their fates outlined early in their respective, fatal episodes, but we still clung to false hope that their fate would somehow be altered. That's what's so simultaneously heartbreaking and respected about this show.Posted by A. McCann on 2008-01-31 16:55:00

Good point about the lifting of the surveillance renewing Marlo's ambitions.

But Joe was still a fool for letting Marlo meet with Vondas in the first place. NEVER give up your connection. EVER. That's rule number one. And the moment Marlo tried to entice Slim and Cheese in front of Joe and the entire co-op, Joe should have signed Marlo's death warrant. Failure to do so is suicide. That's rule number two.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-01-31 14:21:00

Joe wasn't clueless; he just misunderstood and ultimately underestimated Marlow. He thought that Marlow was getting what he needed by being a member of the co-op (and for awhile there Marlow was), and was trying to mentor and "civilize" the kid so that this relationship would remain stable, as it had been for quite some time; remember, something like 15 months have passed between seasons 4 and 5, so Marlow certainly appears to have become, if not entirely satisfied, at least a relatively co-operative member of the co-op. I don't think Joe is being portrayed as a fool; he has no way of knowing, as we do, that the reason Marlow has suddenly gotten so ambitious again is that the incessant surveillance he has been under has been lifted. It's that sort of dramatic irony that The Wire has always been so good at crafting, but it doesn't mean that Joe's a fool just because we know more about the situation than he does.Posted by Dan Jardine on 2008-01-31 11:45:00

" why on earth would the Greek ever even know the co-op exists?"

Because Prop Joe stupidly allowed Marlo to talk to Vondas, to get assurance that the shipment really was ripped off by Omar. At that point, if not earlier, the Greek would have known about Joe's co-op.

"But Marlo can now either sell the Greek's product to the other co-op members, or move in on their territory with his own people and the good dope."

Who in his right mind would stay in the co-op after Marlo just murdered two of the members and replaced them with a turncoat crony (Cheese) and himself as leader? The guy is obviously a power-mad psychopath who'll come after you next. The whole reason for the co-op has now vanished. Moving in on other dealers' territory means war. Maybe Marlo will win the war, maybe he won't; but the short-term result will definitely be "bad for business".

"The only logic for Joe not acting was that Marlo had grown too powerful, so Joe was scared of him and figured he was safer cozying up to him as a father figure."

If this was Joe's logic, it's further proof of his complete loss of common sense. Marlo is a raging psychopath who'd never be satisfied "playing the son" to a fatuous coward. By refusing to act immediately against an obvious coup, Joe signalled to everyone that he was weak and stupid and ripe for a fall. It's as if the bodysnatchers snuck in between seasons and replaced cold crafty Joe with a clueless wimpy lookalike.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-01-31 08:25:00

All the talk about why the Greek would risk upsetting the co-op forces me to ask: why on earth would the Greek ever even know the co-op exists? His job is to supply dope. If Prop Joe upped his orders, good for the Greek. He didn't need to know it was to supply the other dealers of Baltimore. So if he deals with Marlo now instead of Prop Joe, that's fine too. If the splitting of the co-op means less business for the Greek, he'll realize it at that point. But Marlo can now either sell the Greek's product to the other co-op members, or move in on their territory with his own people and the good dope. Doesn't necessarily affect the Greek at all.

My only problem with the storyline is that Prop Joe should've recognized the threat from Marlo when he started openly sowing seeds of dissent among his underlings in front of everyone at the co-op meetings. The only logic for Joe not acting was that Marlo had grown too powerful, so Joe was scared of him and figured he was safer cozying up to him as a father figure.Posted by on the dole on 2008-01-31 05:53:00

"You think he in the end actually gives a shit about Joe? We may hear a fond word here or there but in the end that doesn;t count a lick."

I certainly don't think the Greek had any sentimental attachments to Joe. But giving the nod to Marlo might start a civil war among the co-op, which would be "bad for business". I'd think the Greek would either stay out of it altogether by refusing to meet with Marlo or simply say no to Marlo's request for permission to off Joe.

I suppose you could argue that the Greek thought Joe must be weak and stupid to even let someone like Marlo into the co-op, but that would only bring us back to my other point: How did Prop Joe suddenly become so soft and clueless? Did he have a stroke between seasons? Did Alzheimer's finally kick in? Was he getting high on his own supply? It seems like a forced and phony development.

"it's fair to say that The Wire has foreshadowed plenty of horrible endings that never came to pass."

Yeah, it's full of red herrings. When Dukie picked up that broken fan and repaired it early on in S4, I immediately thought of Prop Joe's sideline of repairing broken appliances and wondered if the writers were hinting that Dukie would grow up to become another Prop Joe. This looks extremely unlikely now, to say the least.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-01-31 02:31:00

Ben Livant on The Greek & Co.: "He is a rational commodity importer and banker intent on preserving his nearly monopolistic supply to the local drug trade. He's got a ton of nothing invested in the likes of Proposition Joe. For him, the wholesale operators in the narcotics business are not associates to trust. They are mere upper functionaries to monitor. Sorry to be so left-wing analytical but this is the difference between relatively small, domestic mono-product, mercantile capital and relatively large, internationally-connected, finance capital invested in diverse economic sectors, (eg, the sex-slave trade of Season Two). And the first prerogative of big fish is that they keep themselves absolutely removed from whatever vulgar criminality the little fish cannot afford to avoid."

I think your logic is impeccable, and consistent with the show's world view as established over five seasons.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-01-31 01:41:00

Hayden: "My current speculative theory, based entirely on the previews for Ep 55, is that Dukie will end up shooting Omar at some point in the season. This is because a) the writers are huge fans of The Wild Bunch, and b) Pike was shot (spoiler!) by a little kid he clearly didn't see as a threat. Seeing Dukie with a gun triggers that for me."

If this comes to pass, I will buy a crystal ball and mail it to you.

It seems too homage-y for The Wire, but it would be the logical culmination of this season's mega-narrative about impetuous youth replacing/destroying experience--as well as echoing back developments from previous seasons, particularly the "Street vs. Education" elements of Season Four.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-01-31 01:38:00

Re: Prop Joe. I don't think The Greek needs a shred of dissatisfaction with Joe for him to move onto Marlo. You think he in the end actually gives a shit about Joe? We may hear a fond word here or there but in the end that doesn;t count a lick. He sees Marlo come to him again and again, and submit to his demands, and ain't dumb enough to think if he says nah back off Marlo slinks into the wallpaper not to have thoughts about offing Joe ever again. In that moment there is an awareness that one can stay with Joe and probably head to the same conclusion after much time or let this new cat give you your money sooner rather than later. The Greek doesn't have to have your desired growing dissatifaction with Joe, he acknowledges the situation at hand (and they had had contact with Marlo in S.4 after Omar's robbery), and realizes I'll get the same money from here instead of there cause this dude ain't gonna leave Joe alone. i.e. what ben said.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-01-30 23:32:00

Am I a sick fuck for being totally excited by that prospect?

No, sir. You are not. Not in my book.

I have to say that the guys doing the Slate Wire Club annoy the crap out of me, which is a shame given their talent in other areas (consider David Plotz's delightful Blogging The Bible project of last year). They seem ill-suited to the job, forgetting key plot points of seasons past, and their hang-ups about the newsroom boil down to repeating the criticisms of others who have clashed with David Simon. At least they acknowledge that their own experience is not universal, such as when reporters write them to tell them that they have too been reprimanded for using foul language in the office. Yes, that type of thing does happen, and it's never about the language, golden boys, but about power. Finally, I call shenanigans on Jeff Goldberg's claim that he could see Prop Joe's untimely demise foreshadowed. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but it's fair to say that The Wire has foreshadowed plenty of horrible endings that never came to pass. I suppose if Burrell had actually taken the opportunity to beat Daniels' head in with his putter, Goldberg would be crowing about that, too. Up until that final scene, I thought (and, yes, hoped) that Joe could be playing a deeper game than Marlo, because in The Wire, it rarely pays off to speculate.

That said, my current speculative theory, based entirely on the previews for Ep 55, is that Dukie will end up shooting Omar at some point in the season. This is because a) the writers are huge fans of The Wild Bunch, and b) Pike was shot (spoiler!) by a little kid he clearly didn't see as a threat. Seeing Dukie with a gun triggers that for me. And if that comes to pass, I will write Jeff Goldberg a note of apology, although I assume his reaction will rightfully be "what the hell?".Posted by Hayden Childs on 2008-01-30 23:14:00

My take: If you haven't seen the episode yet, you shouldn't be reading recaps. Any recaps. Period.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-01-30 21:47:00

Hayden: Thanks for that. I also hope they're going to torpedo any false nostalgia, and knowing the show, I suspect there is an excellent chance they'll do exactly that. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be the most depressing season yet. Am I a sick fuck for being totally excited by that prospect?

Regarding Prop Joe's death, Slate's TV club has some interesting back-and-forth about that, and about the show's vision generally. Jeffrey Goldberg writes, "What we saw in the undoing of Prop Joe was The Wire at its best. What we saw in the Baltimore Sun subplot this time around was The Wire at its worst." The link is here.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-01-30 21:45:00

I think the last few posts have been right about the relationship between Vondas and The Greek. Vondas showed himself to be the more sentimental of the two with his affection for Nick Sobatka, while the Greek summed up his philosophy of life at the airport when making his escape: "Business, always business." His talk of insurance indicated that he understood that Marlo might not take out Joe, but if he did, they would do business with Marlo. Now what I don't understand is why the Greek would prefer the instability of Marlo over the relative stability of Joe and the Co-op. He seems to have a head for the economics of the situation, and there's no way he doesn't understand that a stable retail market leads to more sales of even the most inelastic good (as Stringer described their dope). As a wholesaler, he has to understand that he has a monopoly in Baltimore, and competition will lead to opportunities for other wholesalers. That's a little confusing, although I understand that Simon et al. were going for a parallel between the fall of Prop Joe and the fall of Twigg.

Anyway, Matt, that was a nice post about the element of false nostalgia in this season, but I hope (having not seen any future episodes yet) that the writers are simply continuing their examination of how little experience is valued in the short-term labor market. In the past, The Wire has demonstrated this repeatedly: Bodie, McNulty, Freamon's 13 years and 4 months in the Pawn Shop Unit, Daniels' time in Evidence Control, Bunny, and so on. I think it may read like nostalgia (and yes, it may even be nostalgia), but it might be driven by something with a point more nuanced than longing for lost greatness.Posted by Hayden Childs on 2008-01-30 17:27:00

"And make no mistake about it. The Greek does not submit to Marlow [...] The Greek [reveals] himself to be the real boss who sanctions Marlo's considered opinion that Joe got to go."

If The Greek had previously expressed dissatisfaction with Joe's performance as drug distributor, then I'd agree with you. But since we are never shown any such thing, The Greek is in effect acquiescing to the presistent demands of the little psycho who comes out of nowhere. And if "the first prerogative of big fish is that they keep themselves absolutely removed" from the doings of the little fish, then why does the Greek suddenly decide that "Joe got to go"? Sounds like he's involving himself in their doings right there. Again, no groundwork was ever laid for this plot turn. We're just supposed to take it as given. But frankly it seems like little more than a lazy convenience for moving the plot along and illustrating a theme.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-01-30 16:09:00

Oh my. Dan Jardine has done it again. Dropped some political salt in the sugar bowl. While I believe it is valid to interpret the thematic ramifications of The Wire according to a point of view that is critical of capitalism, in an exchange hosted by his associate Undercover Black Man, David Simon explicitly stated to me that his ideological orientation is not at all socialist; being instead what is referred to in the US as "liberal" and most everywhere else as "social democratic." In short, he's all for private property and profiting from it as long as there are extra-market institutions in place to redistribute wealth throughout the system. Socialists criticize this position for failing to see the exploitation of labour in profit-making as well as the structural obstacles to post-production redistribution. They take these impediments to the good intentions of social democracy to be "objective."

Now, it is not my intention here to label Jardine's politics. I wish merely to suggest that his explanation of what motivates The Greek to opt for Marlow over Joe is implicitly based on an "objective" reading of the situation. Itzak Basman, just as implicitly, wants a "subjective" take on the matter, which he promotes in terms of great art, which in turn is presumably grounded on complex character psychology and such. Even if Jardine is too left-wing for your Wire interpretation recreation, I maintain The Greek is too infrequent and too sketchy a character for us to attribute a lot of subjective aspects to his motivation. Entering into the subjectivity of The Greek leads Andrew Johnston and Basman respectively to speculate that he had "no choice" but to "give in" to Marlo. I think these speculations are not supported by the objective position of the character, well expressed by Anonymous: "The Greek is the one holding all the cards." Unfortunately, Anonymous does not carry through on this insight and makes the same move as Johnston and Basman insofar as he speaks of The Greek's "acquiescence."

According to an objective reading, The Greek does nothing of the kind. He is a rational commodity importer and banker intent on preserving his nearly monopolistic supply to the local drug trade. He's got a ton of nothing invested in the likes of Proposition Joe. For him, the wholesale operators in the narcotics business are not associates to trust. They are mere upper functionaries to monitor. Sorry to be so left-wing analytical but this is the difference between relatively small, domestic mono-product, mercantile capital and relatively large, internationally-connected, finance capital invested in diverse economic sectors, (eg, the sex-slave trade of Season Two). And the first prerogative of big fish is that they keep themselves absolutely removed from whatever vulgar criminality the little fish cannot afford to avoid.

The Greek's dealings with Joe were functional for a long time but the sheer appearance of Marlo in his lunch trailer was a signal of disfunction. That The Greek must be absolutely removed from the crass illegality of the street traffic must be learned by Marlow. That he learns this is plainly shown when Marlow comes back with new bank bills in the briefcase, not wrinkled shit recently received from the hands of junkies. Only after he demonstrates his learning does The Greek approve of him. And make no mistake about it. The Greek does not submit to Marlow. Marlow proves himself to the The Greek - who in turn endorses him by literally stepping out from behind his short-order cook facade, interrupting his Number One to reverse him, interjecting to reveal himself to be the real boss who sanctions Marlo's considered opinion that Joe got to go.Posted by ben livant on 2008-01-30 14:31:00

Matt, well-said about nostalgia being this season's weakness so far, a point reinforced to some extent by the second half of Anonymous 8:04's post directly below you. (They got a little too fond of Prop Joe the character and Robert Chew the actor, so Prop Joe was kindler, gentler, and considerably less cunning as time went on.)

The newspaper stuff seems to place too much emphasis on profit-mongering, and not enough on changing methods of news delivery. Are newspapers really still as profitable as Gus seems to think? Surely a failure to adapt is as much responsible for being forced to downsize as corporate greed is.

I know I'm in the minority on No Country, but I don't see that puncturing false nostalgia any better than this season of The Wire. There were two striking scenes with Sheriff Bell: 1) the speech about savagery in older times from his wheelchair-bound relative, and 2) Bell's final monologue about dreams. But they both came way too late for me. Bell spends most of the movie whining about how times have changed for the worse (a position I see as delusional), and lazily trampling over evidence at crime scenes. I think we're meant to respect the character a lot more than I was able to. If the Coens were trying to make the point all along that Bell had soured on his work and indeed deserved to be put out to pasture, it didn't come across well enough for me.Posted by on the dole on 2008-01-30 05:54:00

"He can't stop Marlo"

Everyone simply assumes this because the show does. But if the Greek has no influence at all over Marlo, why does Marlo want to meet with the Greek and seek his approval? And if the Greek is "above the fray", why does he even bother to go back to the diner to hear what Marlo has to say?

Sure, the Greek and his associates can "leave and set up shop elsewhere the second they have to", but if the Greeks are all about making money, why would they want to needlessly disrupt their lucrative business in Baltimore?

Some psycho punk with no connections keeps pestering you for permission to kill one of your longtime business partners. You say yes, he tries to take over the co-op, starts turf wars, draws unwanted police attention, you have to leave Baltimore and wait for all this shit to blow over. Big nuisance, bad for business. You say no, the punk backs down and problem is averted and it's business as usual. Or if the punk actually succeeds in taking over Joe's co-op, he will still need to do business with you since you are the only decent supplier in Baltimore. But in either case you should say no to the punk.

"Marlow was coming on strong, Joe was weak."

This is another problem I'm having with this season. For four seasons now Joe has been presented to us as a cunning, cold-blooded kingpin. Now suddenly he's become a clueless, sentimental wimp. When Marlo openly tried to suborn both Slim and Cheese in front of Joe and the entire co-op, any kingpin with an ounce of common sense and self-preservation would immediately make plans to wipe Marlo out. If you didn't think you and the other members of the co-op were up to the job, you could always bring in Brother Mouzone and some other heavy hitters from outside. Under no circumstances do you smile and do nothing--or even worse, treat him like a son and show him the inner workings of your business. That's suicidal.

But the plot and theme required Marlo to take out Joe, so Joe suddenly becomes weak and stupid and allows Marlo to take him out. In well-crafted fiction, characters don't suddenly start acting inconsistently with their previously established behavior for the sake of plot and theme. Plot and theme should arise out of consistent, believable characterization.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-01-30 01:04:00

At the risk of dousing the considerable enthusiasm for the final season of this series--which is well-deserved--I was thinking about the last few eps today and came to the conclusion that if "The Wire" has a major weak spot this season, it's nostalgia for a better time.

There's not much golden-hued yearning for the grand old days of the Baltimore PD, thank goodness. But I do detect a faint nostalgia for a time when criminals had a code (like Prop Joe and Omar, as compared to Marlo, Chris and Snoop). Prop Joe may be a classier, more restrained type of crime kingpin, but he's still a drug dealer who's responsible for a lot of deaths, directly and indirectly. Likewise, while I absolutely buy the depiction of the 21st century newspaper business having to do "more with less" as a result of profit-mongering by the parent company (and economic, cultural and technological pressures that the show alludes to but doesn't really explore)--I experienced this firsthand and can testify to the accuracy of most of Simon & Co's general conclusions--there are times when the series draws too sharp a divide between the mentalities of the editor-in-chief and Templeton (who, in their fixation on high-impact stories at the expense of context, seem like birds of a feather) and guys like Gus Haynes and Roger Twigg. Let's not forget that newspapers, like all media, have always had a mendacious aspect, and a willingness to prize sensationalism over substance.

I only bring all this up because a yearning for a better time in movies and TV shows is a pet peeve of mine. It's an aspect that bugs me about the "Godfather" trilogy, which contrasts the supposedly more honorable, family-treasuring Don Vito Corleone with the colder machinations of his son Michael, and "Broadcast News," which positions the William Hurt character as the epitome of style over substance (as if TV news hadn't fought a mostly losing battle against addiction to the former since its invention). (As examples of the reality of the criminal and repertorial mindsets, I prefer Scorsese's gangster pictures and Ken Finkelman's outstanding series "The Newsroom" and "More Tears," which unfortunately didn't get a prominent airing in the U.S.

Anonymous 11:33, above, name-checks Anton Chighur from "No Country for Old Men" and links him to Marlo, which is cool but only works up to a point. What's fantastic about the Coens' film is how it punctures the false nostalgia of the old-timers for a grander or more sensible time--mainly in Bell's onscreen and voice-over monologues and anecdotes, which suggest that his part of the country has always been a bit wild and scary, and he only yearns to experience the eras that occurred before he was alive because, well, he didn't experience them, and his dreams of what it was like are more intriguing in some ways than the grubby reality he's stuck in right this second.

Yes, I know, there are plenty of exceptions to all the generalizations I just made--Mike Fletcher and Alma Guiterrez at the paper, Michael on the street. I just mean that I sometimes sense the show giving in to a kind of false nostalgia, a belief that there was a time when life in the big city was quantifiably better, in some sense, than it is now, as opposed to different but equally troubled. I hope the series doesn't settle into that groove, because a tough-love attitude toward the human animal and a willingness to puncture delusions of all kinds have always been two of the show's most valuable characteristics.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-01-30 00:54:00

I'd have to side with Dan here. The Greek and his henchman have no connection to Baltimore at all. It's just a convenient place to make money. They will leave and set up shop elsewhere the second they have to, whether business goes bad or the law comes after him. Remember, the Greek holds the ultimate trump card: he's in with the feds as a protected informant.

Marlow was coming on strong, Joe was weak. In the end, the shortest distance between business and profit with a minimum of effort (for the Greek's part) is to accept Marlow as being the new middle-man for the co-op.

The Greek has no interest in killing any of these punks...he stays well above the fray.Posted by Joel on 2008-01-29 23:42:00

Dan Jardine:

Thanks for the clarification.

I understand better what you are saying: not that capitalism is assimilable to murderous drug dealing, but, rather, that the profit motive, so to speak, ousts human feelings towards P. Joe.

My misunderstanding!Posted by itzik basman on 2008-01-29 23:12:00

"Screedish bromides" just happens to be the name of my band, so thanks for the nod.

I am in no way REDUCING the show to the catch phrase "it's capitalism" so much as I'm explaining The Greeks' decision to let Marlo loose. He can't stop Marlo, so why not find a way to work with him, particularly considering that he looks like the kind of force that won't stop until he controls ALL of the drug trade in the city. The Greek is trying to find a way to continue to maximimze his profits, and sticking with Joe wasn't the optimal way of doing so.

"It's only business, Joe; sorry to see you go."Posted by Dan Jardine on 2008-01-29 20:30:00

"Don't matter if it's Marlo, Chigurth or, at the other end of the good v. evil spectrum, Obama: You can't stop what's coming..."

Yeah, I know, that's my problem with this season: It has awkwardly lurched from realism to pure allegory, from human drama to absurdist farce. Marlo is Unstoppable Evil, The Greek is Raw Capitalism, Jimmy is Relentless Obsession, etc. But in the process it has left plausibility far behind. It's starting to feel just a little too plot-driven. Characters we've known for three or four seasons are suddenly acting acting totally out of character in order to push the plot forward and Exemplify The Theme. The ugly noise you hear is the sound of gears grinding as show's tranny shits the bed.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-01-29 18:30:00

To anonymous and Dan Jardine:

I have been following with interest your small debate about the Greek and the killing of Joe. I think you both have good arguments and I have no difficulty seeing the issue from both your perspectives. I myself would give a small nod to Dan Jardine's side of the argument.

That said, though, it strikes me as wrong and to say, "It's capitalism." I have read commentary on The Wire that thankfully disassociates left of centre talking points from the richness of The Wire as great art. I'd like the think that the show makers have nothing so simplistic in mind as that "It's capitalism."

It could be something like man as conscienceless predator, pure evil getting mediated by commerce or whatever. But to wrap the show into screedish bromides about the nature of capitalism is to reduce it to a slogan and cliche, everything The Wire is opposite to.

Itzik BasmanPosted by itzik basman on 2008-01-29 17:45:00

Don't matter if it's Marlo, Chigurth or, at the other end of the good v. evil spectrum, Obama: You can't stop what's coming...Posted by Anonymous on 2008-01-29 16:33:00

"Marlo is going to take Joe down eventually, whether or not he wants it to happen"

Yes, I understand that that's the analogy we're supposed to take from all this, but I'm just talking about plausibility here. Joe is the Greek's man. You fuck with Joe, you fuck with the Greek. Marlo understood this--that's why he sought the Greek's approval.

So, who's running the show: The Greek or some two-bit psycho streetcorner thug? The Greek gave in much too easily. It strains credibility. If the writers wanted this plot turn to be more credible, they should have shown us how the Greek was getting weary of Joe and considering this new kid as a more viable replacement. But instead we get this rushed plot development, with characters acting rather uncharacteristically.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-01-29 15:39:00

It's capitalism. The Greek may prefer doing business with the more stable and predictable Joe, but he also sees that Marlo is going to take Joe down eventually, whether or not he wants it to happen, and that Marlo will be his primary avenue for getting his drugs onto the streets. So while he doesn't like or condone the hit, the Greek is a businessman first, and he knows he'll inevitably have to cut a deal with Marlo if he wants to keep making money.

The drug culture is capitalism in one of its purest forms. Like Lester always says, follow the money. Money trumps everything.Posted by Dan Jardine on 2008-01-29 14:41:00

But, Dan, why would the Greeks have to continue meeting with Marlo? What's it to them if Marlo keeps coming back to some crummy little diner? They don't hang out there anymore. Meet with him once, tell him not to touch a hair on Joe's head or it's not only goodbye connect but also war with a much smarter and better organized international syndicate. Marlo's no fool, that's why he went to the Greeks in the first place: to see if they were okay with him taking out Joe. But the question remains why the Greek suddenly decided it didn't matter if his trusted longtime associate was murdered by some scruffy little psycho fresh off the streets. The writers should have given us some indication of the Greek's increasing disappointment in Joe's performance during previous seasons. As it is, the Greek's decision just seems totally random and inexplicable.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-01-29 10:50:00

No doubt, Dan. Robert F Chew's delivery is fucking fantastic. My favorite line of the series remains, "If it wasn't for Sergei here y'all'd be some cadaverous mothafuckas." But his "...and outta respect for that man's skill set I'ma take myself out of the line up after the meet tomorrah" aside was pretty much perfect, too. As was, of course, his Scripture citation inside the florist joint.Posted by Ryland Walker Knight on 2008-01-29 06:39:00

Regarding anonymous's not buying the Greek backing off and tacitly endorsing Marlo over Prop Joe, he realizes he has little choice in the matter, because even though he has repeatedly declined Marlo's overtures, Marlo just keeps coming at him. As the Greek notes, no matter how often they say no to the man, Marlo will just keep coming back. So the Greek sees that it is time to accept the inevitable: Marlo, the irresistable force, is going to take down Prop Joe, the once-immovable object.

And serious props (heh) to Robert Chew, whose portrayal of Proposition Joe has always been one of the series' hilights for me.

You will be missed, Robert.Posted by Dan Jardine on 2008-01-29 06:30:00

Andrew J: I thought you were hinting at, or maybe just thinking about, Marlo's eventual downfall at the hands of Omar. "Sweet Jesus I'ma work them." Omar respected Joe, and he hates Marlo, so it's no great stretch to think Joe's death will add fire to Omar's fury. Right? Or am I just setting my hopes too high? Will Simon and Burns really let this kid's royal addiction run rampant? My gut tells me Omar, Chris and Snoop's shoot out, previewed after the episode, will drop at least one body. Given the length of this season, and Simon's willingness to shunt major characters, I could see that body being Omar. The thought of that... ouch.

Also: now they got me missing and worrying about Bubbles.Posted by Ryland Walker Knight on 2008-01-29 04:24:00

Oh man. On second viewing, I just caught that Freamon's former partner Oscar was played by Gordon from Sesame Street. Whoa!Posted by Hayden Childs on 2008-01-29 04:04:00

But Seriously. Great review per usual Andrew J!

"At least it seems toâ€”this week's events on the streets, at city hall, in police HQ and at the Western District station house represent the culmination of so much long-term plot and character development spanning several seasons that the Sun scenes can't help seeming like weak sauce by comparison.â€

I believe this is due to the fact that Burns was at the helm of this episode as its writer, and his expertise always lies with the street/cop storylines. He also compiled some of the greatest lines in one given episode in the entire series.

Freamon: It's the coming out that tells the taleCarver: It all matters.Marlo: I wasn't made to play the son

The dichotomy between the two scenes in which Omar and Chris hold a gun to the back of a character's head â€“ and the ensuing action - reveal powerful imagery of the bible verse (thanks Andrew) Joe quoted in the beginning of the episode. Also quite telling that phrase "head shotâ€ was thrown around often in this episode.

Some great small continuity touches were Johnny Fifty - former dock union member - sitting in the homeless village underneath the overpass, the flower vendor from Season 2, and the dispatch voice from the woman who has doubled as the receptionist in the city hall office from season 1, and the school's receptionist in Season 4. (I'm fairly certain she is part of the crew or was someone in Simon/Burns' professional, pre-Wire Baltimore life.)Posted by A. McCann on 2008-01-28 20:20:00

"At the top of the episode, the man with the worst haircut on television, Western District patrolman Anthony Colicchio, attempts to bust Michael and his corner boys..."

Man, this is awesome! This past weekend, my normal barber was closed, so I went to one of those "chop shops" and got a horrible haircut. I told my friend that the lady gave me the "Colicchio!"Posted by A. McCann on 2008-01-28 19:56:00

Matt, I'd actually argue that it depends on one's definition of pure. I have no quibble with Marlo as evil, but I do think he's less the one-dimensional force-of-nature that everyone insists he is. You have to dig deep to find the human, but he's in there.Posted by on the dole on 2008-01-28 17:25:00

When Stringer Bell died, there were quite a few fans who were theorizing that maybe he had a vest on or something in the week leading up to the next episode, so it's not completely outlandish that some people might find a way of denying Joe's death. Fandom is a powerful thing.Posted by Andrew on 2008-01-28 17:18:00

I totally whiffed the Colicchio thing, I admit, as the whole bit about the elementary school teacher is all coming back to me now. Either that didn't make it into my notes when I rewatched the episode on Friday, or I wrote it down in seriously screwed-up handwriting that I couldn't read later.

The "some Wire fans might think that it was Marlo who got shot" bit was a kind of flat attempt at a joke that came about after I realized it was possible that Joe's biggest fans might (almost willingly) go into denial about his fate, and also realized that the masterfully constructed sequence at the end could also be interpreted as a cheap trick by someone who wanted to read it that way.Posted by Andrew Johnston on 2008-01-28 14:26:00

on the dole: "the common widsom seems to be that Marlo is "pure evil," but I'd argue that not outwardly losing control and being capable of ruthlessness don't constitute pure evil."

Depends on one's definition of evil, I guess. Marlo differs from, say, Avon Barksdale or Stringer Bell in that he seems incapable of making a human connection with anybody. It's all about dominance/submission with him--bending others to his will and allowing others to bend him to their will only when doing so will lead to more power. He accumulates power for power's sake. Yet throughout, as evidenced in that last closeup, he feels nothing that we would describe as pleasure. He takes a scientific interest in dominating others. Something about him reminds me of an animal abuser. His face said, "Interesting. That's not the reaction I expected from Prop Joe."Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-01-28 13:02:00

Wonderful episode heaped in continuity (Kima going to see Cheryl and the kid was a nice soft touch and that slow burn on the home invasion story is where I fear Michael's story will find it's unexpected bookend.)

One question - wasn't Carver's decision to write up Collichio more about his attack on a "citizen" than his arresting the corner boys? Collichio's refusal to see he was wrong and how assaulting an elementary school teacher wasn't within the rights of a Po-Lice was what "mattered". In truth, while Carver saw the whole situation on the street as ridiculous, it's when the police forget that they are there to serve and protect "good people" that gets his goat these days.

In truth, he's far less complicated morally in that regard than Daniels. While Cedric is interested in making good cases and eliminating crime, he's also as focused on his own personal career advancement.

But, you're right, Carver is on a path much like Daniels (or Bunny depending on how malleable his moral code is or isn't in the future) and yet he, too, has skeletons in his closet (the money from season 1 that has forever tied him to Herc and his complicity in Hamsterdam).

I know it's risky to predict on this show when there's On Demand out there and Critics have seen through episode 7 but I'm hanging my hat on the prospect (rimshot) that Marlo isn't successful in his play to take over the drug trade in Baltimore and that Slim Charles rightly ascends to that Prop Joe position.

If I don't cling to that, I don't know how many more deaths of beloved characters I can take.Posted by misterjt on 2008-01-28 10:10:00

Brilliant episode, perhaps the best so far this season. But I still don't buy the Greek's acquiescence to Marlo. What does the Greek have to gain by letting a psycho street punk take out a trusted longtime associate like Joe? Especially since Marlo is likely to wreck the co-op and start bloody turf wars, bringing lots of unwanted police attention. Wouldn't they be better off with good old reliable, low-key, well-connected Joe? The Greek is the one holding all the cards: Just tell the punk that any move against Joe will not only cut Marlo off from the Greek's supply but also be considered an "act of war". That would be enough to put Marlo in his place.

Sure, it makes for a neat parallel in the whole Transition theme (Marlo succeeds Prop Joe as Daniels succeeds Burrell), but it lacks plausibility for me.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-01-28 09:14:00

That whole sequence culminating in the closeup of Marlo was extraordinary. Marlo seems to find an almost serene pleasure in his power to dictate the terms and timing of Prop Joe's death. How do I put this tastefully? I almost felt like he was coaxing a girl into pleasuring him (and getting the same sort of pleasure out of doing so). Which speaks somewhat to a point I want to make: the common widsom seems to be that Marlo is "pure evil," but I'd argue that not outwardly losing control and being capable of ruthlessness don't constitute pure evil. There's not a lot to go on, but we do get some tantalizing peeks behind the curtain.Posted by on the dole on 2008-01-28 06:58:00

Great review and man, Matt is right: that was one of the all-time great episodes, right out of the gate.

One nit to pick, though: Carver's write-up of Colicchio isn't about Michael, but about Colicchio beating on a civilian and refusing to feel bad about it. That's a feud that's been a long-time coming.

Also, as great as was for continuity's sake to see Joe go to the same florist Bodie went to for D'Angelo's funeral, it was a slice of awesome to see Johnny Fifty slugging whiskey with the homeless.

I don't think the Greek gave Marlo permission to off Joe. I think Marlo took it on himself, and his line to Joe was a characteristic fuck-you.

Lastly (and this is coming from someone unspoiled for future episodes and committed to remaining so), how great would the Omar & Slim Charles Variety Hour spin-off be? They could fight crime, commit crime, have a few guests to intimidate, some crude skits. It would be a damn sight better than Saturday Night Live. David Simon, if you're reading this, my profile email's good. We'll do lunch.Posted by Hayden Childs on 2008-01-28 06:37:00

And yes indeed, that final closeup of Marlo was astonishing. HBO dramas as a species tend to do extraordinarily fine work with chapter-ending closeups. I think my favorite is still probably Seth Bullock's tear-streaked face as he kneels over Wild Bill's corpse at the end of episode 4 of "Deadwood" Season One. This closeup was in that league--perhaps as good, but different.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-01-28 06:15:00

A masterful episode--one of the all-around best, and that's saying something.

More notes tomorrow when I can collect my thoughts (I've only seen this one once, for the first time tonight). For now I'll just cite the farewell scene between Burrell and Rawls, where Burrell self-servingly but accurately points out that the mayor's office always thinks it can tell the police department how to do its job, and it sends the PD on all sorts of politically motivated wild goose chases, then blames it for not doing its job as well as it could have. Burrell telling Rawls that some day he'll sit behind this desk, and he'll have to eat shit, too was classic Wire--not just in its insistence that at every level of human life, politics and self-interest tends to trump professionalism and social conscience; but also in the way that it gave Burrell, very much a hack bureaucrat, the last word on his storyline. The show's ability to spread empathy around--to show us the world through the eyes of a character we might not normally sympathize with--is one of the things that makes it special.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-01-28 06:12:00

Beadie's speech about how she never believed the "McNuttyâ€ stories until he fell off the wagon is, however, unfortunately tin-eared and well below The Wire's usual standards (as well as unworthy of Amy Ryan's formidable talent)Amy Ryan sells the scene as best as she can. It was also the only moment in this loaded episode that struck me as rushed and obligatory. But talk about "more with less". Simon & Co. are working miracles. I'm still digesting, so pardon the lack of flow.

I can't say Joe didn't have it coming but watching him go is something else entirely. Listening to him choke up when speaking of his disappointment with Cheese just after lamenting that youths have lost a sense of family pride/loyalty is disheartening. Watching him leave with that calm is...I don't have the word. Marlo, however, with his aptly labeled tee design*, is soul-dead, glacial. That last shot chills as much as Omar's in the previous eps.

Major continuity points scored here (where's it at now, 1001?) with the florist who Bodie sought out for Dee's funeral and Johnny Fifty in the homeless alley. Makes me want to watch the first two seasons again.

The Ninotchka tagline's appropriate here: Marlo Laughs! and Herc's the one to make him do it. I saw their brief, hilarious meet coming from the second I laid eyes on the Levy building plaque from outside.

I can't get it out of my mind that something terrible is going to happen to Michael/Dukie. The very thought makes me ill. On that thought, I hope Monk's made peace with his God.

I have seen this episode about 4 times and each time I see it I am amazed at the richness and density of the details, always noting something I didn't catch before. For one example, I only this time noted that Herc is driving a Mercedes as it is partially shown parked near where he's having his thematically important conversation with Carver and himself gets persuaded that thngs "matterâ€.

I thought your synopsis was masterful in its comprehensiveness and insights. And usually in reading writing on books and film I don't want the plot summarized. But for The Wire, for me at least, the plot synopses you and others do are essential to my understanding the richness of The Wire's art. The intricacies of the plot lines and the abounding contrasts and comparisons are at the core of The Wire's greatness. And I amazed at how much I miss even on repeating viewings. The synopses teach me a great deal about each episode.

Here are a few scattered comments on your comments:

1. "Marlo's coup against Proposition Joe, which both makes Marlo the king of the East Side leaves "the Greekâ€ with no choice but to do business with himâ€

I still don't totally understand the scene between Marlo and The Greek. I thought that Marlo needed to get the Greek's permission to overthrow Joe and I did not understand clearly what persuaded the Greek to finally assent. I understood some point about Marlo needing insurance, but did not think that Greek had okayed Marlo getting rid of Joe until Marlo told Joe the Greek was "coolâ€ with it beofre causing him to have a bullet put into his head. My best guess is that Greek thought was that Marlo was so relentless that he may as well give in, understanding that Marlo might run a tighter ship than Joe. But it is far from clear to me.

2. "I'm sure a substet of Wire fans will float the theory that it's actually Marlo, and not Joe, who takes a bullet in the final sceneâ€¦â€

I have trouble understanding that speculation. To me, for as painful as it was to lose Joe, it was crystal clear that Chris on Marlo's nod shot Joe dead with a head shot, and the finals scene of the episodeâ€”a close up of Marlo as he took in the reality of the shootingâ€”was about as compelling and complex yet understated a portrayal of pure evil as I have ever seen on film, made even more insidious by Marlo's soothing, seductive parting advice to Joe to close his eyes and breathe easy. The scene to me makes clear the tender affection Marlo had for Joe even while remorselessly causing his death.

3. "I've seen some stupid shit in my day, but even by Western standards this rates a whole new category!â€, Carver barks, before announcing his intent to bring charges against Colicchio over the incident.â€

My small point here is that I thought Carver only decided to write Colicchio up after Colicchio rebuffed Carver's attempt to help Colicchio handle the questioning of him that was about 10 minutes away, just like Daniels used to do. Colicchio's intransigence lit something in Carver that had him willing to take sides with what "mattersâ€ rather than continuing to go along as if excessive police force did not matter.

4."Rather than the hoax, I'd say the definitive proof of how unhinged McNulty has become is his increasingly voluntary estrangement of Beadie, a woman who is clearly one of the best things to ever happen to him. Beadie's speech about how she never believed the "McNuttyâ€ stories until he fell off the wagon is, however, unfortunately tin-eared and well below The Wire's usual standards (as well as unworthy of Amy Ryan's formidable talent). Given the amount of awesomeness that David Simon and Edward Burns cram into this incredibly dense episode, though, I'll gladly forgive them for whiffing one measly scene.

I'm not sure what you mean by "unhinged.â€ McNulty is drinking and womanizing again, willing to sacrifice almost anything and anybody to get his way on the job, which means getting the bosses to agree that 22 murders matter and to agree to better fund the police, and which to him and to me seems righteous. The drinking and the whoring around go hand in hand with his doing police work his way, and go hand in hand with something mattering in the moral universe he inhabits. Hinged would have been McNulty pounding a beat living happily with Beadie, kind of tending his own garden as Voltaire espoused. So if you mean by unhinged that McNulty is a wild man again, you will get no quarrel from me. But if you mean that he is losing emotionally and falling apart, I might want to argue that point some.

Anyway, none of the comments take one whit away from your great piece on this epsiode, and thanks for it.

Itzik BasmanPosted by itzik basman on 2008-01-28 05:01:00

I have seen this episode about 4 times and each time I see it I am amazed at the richness and density of the details, always noting something I didn't catch before.

For one small example, I only this time noted that Herc is driving a Mercedes, partially shown parked near where he's having his thematically important conversation with Carver. (Herc himself gets persuaded that things "matterâ€.)

I thought your synopsis was masterful in its comprehensiveness and its many insights. And usually in reading writing on books and film I don't want the plot summarized. But for The Wire, for me at least, the plot synopses you and others do are essential to my understanding the richness of The Wire's art. The intricacies of the plot lines, the significant density of the detail and the abounding contrasts and comparisons are all at the core of The Wire's greatness. I amazed at how much I miss even on repeating viewings. The synopses teach me a great deal about each episode.

Here are a few scattered comments on your comments:

1. "Marlo's coup against Proposition Joe, which both makes Marlo the king of the East Side leaves "the Greekâ€ with no choice but to do business with himâ€

I still don't totally understand the scene between Marlo and The Greek. I thought that Marlo needed to get the Greek's permission to overthrow Joe and I did not understand clearly what persuaded the Greek finally to assent. I understood some point about Marlo needing insurance, but did not think that the Greek had okayed Marlo getting rid of Joe until Marlo told Joe the Greek was "coolâ€ with it before okaying a bullet into Joe's head. My best guess is that Greek thought was that Marlo was so relentless that he may as well give in, understanding that Marlo might run a tighter ship than Joe in any event. But it is far from clear to me.

2. "I'm sure a substet of Wire fans will float the theory that it's actually Marlo, and not Joe, who takes a bullet in the final sceneâ€¦â€

I have trouble understanding that speculation. To me, for as painful as it was to lose Joe, it was crystal clear that Chris on Marlo's nod shot Joe dead with a head shot. The final scene of the episodeâ€”a close up of Marlo as he takes in the reality of the shootingâ€”was about as compelling and complex yet understated a portrayal of pure evil as I have ever seen on film, made even more insidious by Marlo's soothing, seductive parting advice to Joe to close his eyes and breathe easy. The scene to me makes clear the tender affection Marlo had for Joe even while remorselessly causing his death.

3. "I've seen some stupid shit in my day, but even by Western standards this rates a whole new category!â€, Carver barks, before announcing his intent to bring charges against Colicchio over the incident.â€

My small point here is that I thought Carver only decided to write Colicchio up after Colicchio rebuffed Carver's attempt to help Colicchio handle the questioning of him that was about 10 minutes away, just like Daniels used to do. Colicchio's intransigence lit something in Carver that had him willing to take sides with what "mattersâ€ rather than continuing to go along as if excessive police force did not matter.

4."Rather than the hoax, I'd say the definitive proof of how unhinged McNulty has become is his increasingly voluntary estrangement of Beadie, a woman who is clearly one of the best things to ever happen to him. Beadie's speech about how she never believed the "McNuttyâ€ stories until he fell off the wagon is, however, unfortunately tin-eared and well below The Wire's usual standards (as well as unworthy of Amy Ryan's formidable talent). Given the amount of awesomeness that David Simon and Edward Burns cram into this incredibly dense episode, though, I'll gladly forgive them for whiffing one measly scene.

I'm not sure what you mean by "unhinged.â€ McNulty is drinking and womanizing again, willing to sacrifice almost anything and anybody to get his way on the job, which for him means getting the bosses to agree that 22 murders matter and agree to better fund the police. For McNulty (and for me too), his cause seems righteous. The drinking and the whoring around go hand in hand with his doing police work his way, and go hand in hand with something mattering in the moral universe he inhabits. Hinged perhaps would have been McNulty pounding a beat living happily with Beadie, kind of tending his own garden as Voltaire espoused--a kind of quietism. So if you mean by unhinged that McNulty is a wild man again, you will get no quarrel from me. But if you mean that he is losing himself emotionally and falling apart, I might want to argue that point some. His wildness--and destructiveness--may paradoxically be integral to him being at his moral and most meaningful best.

But I agree with about the weak scene between McNulty and Beadie; she seemd a bit wooden and unbeliveable--especially after seeing her in Gone Baby Gone, in which she is fantastic.

Anyway, none of these few comments take one whit away from your great piece on this epsiode, and thanks for it.

Itzik BasmanPosted by itzik basman on 2008-01-28 04:56:00

Good review.

The thing that struck me the second viewing (the first viewing was all about poor Joe's fate) was Bond's decision to claim Clay Davis with a "perp walk." By playing the career game and refusing to take the case federal, Bond may well have set the stage for Clay's eventual escape.

A true crook like Davis managing to slip out between a bureaucratic crack borne of careerism sounds like pure, uncut Wire.Posted by KcM on 2008-01-28 04:38:00